Ketchikan Drywall Services v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

Ketchikan Drywall Services v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?
The first legal issue, in this case, was non-compliance with the law. Ketchikan was found culpable or guilty of not complying with the law regarding its responsibility to ensure that all its employees have legal authorization to work in the United States. Secondly, there is the failure by KDS to comply with the statutes spelled out by IRCA regarding the completion of employees’ I-9 forms. KDS was found guilty of not completing its employees’ I-9 forms, which was a violation of the IRCA.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling, who had asked that KDS pay a penalty of $173,250.00.
What arguments does this employer make for why its actions did not violate IRCA or were, at most, minor, technical violations? Why does the court reject these arguments?
KDS argues that employees and employers should not be put through the mountainous task of copying information to the I-9 forms. Secondly, KDS indicates that it ought not to be held responsible for the omissions and mistakes of its employees. Third, KDS feels it did not violate IRCA because the issues being alleged are simply technical and minor errors that could easily be corrected. KDS also makes the argument that it ought not to suffer the penalty because it used a rehired employee’s previous Section 1 of the I-9 form. Further, KDS is arguing that the ALJ should have considered the new documents it provided for the first time because of its ability to help cover any loopholes contained in its employees’ I-9 forms. There is also the argument that the ALJ erred in its ruling because no individualized penalties were determined for the violations cited. Lastly, there was the argument that KDS should have its penalties reduced because it acted in good faith.
The court rejects these arguments because it asserts that by coping information to the I-9 forms, employees and employees are accorded the time to review their compliance with IRCA. Secondly, per the IRCA, employers are mandated to verify their employees and potential employees’ authorization to work in the United States or to fill certain roles (USCIS, 2020). Per the IRCA, employers should take action and discontinue an employee if they are not authorized. So, the responsibility fell squarely on KDS to verify its employees. Thirdly, KDS was found culpable because though some violations could be deemed technical and minor, there were crucial omissions and errors in Section 1 of the I-9 forms that showcased KDS’s complacency. Fourth, the court upheld the decision because it was showcased that KDS was complacent and ignored the IRCA’s statutes. For example, it was crucial that rehired employees physically append their signatures on Section 1 of the I-9 forms, and KDS ignored this statute. Lastly, KDS was found to not act in good faith because of its lackadaisical approach to complying with statutes deemed more than 20 years old.
What factors are considered in determining the penalties for IRCA violations? Why does the court reject this employer’s arguments for a lesser penalty? Should penalties only be assessed when it is shown that a violation of IRCA requirements resulted in the hiring of a worker not authorized to work in the United States? Why or why not?
The factors considered in determining penalties for IRCA violations include knowingly hiring an unauthorized employee and continuing to employ such an employee (USICE, 2022). Further, other factors include procedural failures in the hiring and verification process and apparent negligence, especially regarding technical errors.
The court rejects KDS’s appeal for a lesser penalty because of procedural failures in the hiring and verification process. Also, KDS was found negligent in its duty and responsibility to ensure that its new hires met the requirements of IRCA.
No. The scope should be wider and include penalties when it is proven that an employee is not authorized for a particular line of work. Employment authorization is just as crucial because its verification can help save lives, especially with employees and potential employees lying about their qualifications and skills.
What are some practical implications of this case for employers?
Implications of this case for employers include maintaining a level of professionalism that seeks to uncover any aspect of negligence or ignorance of the law.
Secondly, there is the element of doing one’s due diligence with regards to vetting and verifying all employees’ qualifications and authorization to work in the U.S.
Thirdly, it is impossible to escape the law through technicalities. KDS argued that the do...